Monday, September 17, 2012
A Response to Not So Modern Music Blog
hudsonsounds.org: I will diverge from my typical comments on pianos and all things piano to speak instead about music in general in response to a very thoughtful blog by my friend and colleague, Mary Jane Leach. In her recent blog, she brings up some very vital points regarding what is considered ‘modern’ and how the presenters/performers and audience relate to such in music. I found her comments thought-provoking and it struck a chord with me in a completely different way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I was expecting something entirely different when I clicked on this article, but I'm more than glad that I ended up where I did. Art, and that means all art, is a give and take. The artist(s) display their product to an audience, and that audience gives response. Whether that response comes from a positive or negative place, those who have experienced know that it can be disparately gratifying in either direction. That being said, I agree with the author. What is "modern." I suppose modern is new - doing something in a way nobody has ever done in before. And there in lies the push - the more new experiences on has, the more new experiences they can create. It's a beautiful thing in that it really is what drives the art world forward.
I agree with everything this article is trying to explain. To me art is a chance to create a false reality. This reality is different from what a typical person would experience so no matter what arts will as the author described as challenged, pushed, prodded and lead. Although some art may be an extension of communication or purely for aesthetic, it is within these things we can learn a lot about ourselves and live better lives not only for yourself but others around you.
This article reminded me of this Literary theory on authorship, that explores the concept of how once an author creates a piece of work, it no longer belongs to him or her, it is now the property of the readers. So often the idea of "authorial intent" comes into discussion, and I feel the same can be applicable to art and more specifically performance.
We as theatrical practitioners are so immersed in our processes to create art and present for the minds of others. But despite what we put into it and intend to for audiences to perceive, we can't control perception. Once we put something on that stage, we no longer have any power in what that outcome will be.
So audience members alike, it's important to ackownledge how pivotal that role is when we look at the bigger picture, and claim the ownership we have.
Like the author of this blog I also hope to be changed for the better when I go into a performance. I think the biggest epiphany i've had about myself at Carnegie Mellon happened watching a playground piece that related to something very personal about my life that I never shared with anyone. I hope that can happen to other people.
The most interesting part of the article is the writer's point of view on the role of art as a way to educate and explore new ideas, to continually push those who experience it to experience more. This is a valuable answer to the never-ending "what is art" question, and suggests a responsibility in both the artist and the the viewer/listener/etc. that is rarely acknowledged. While we may intuitively know this about the role of art in society, the writer provides an accurate and meaningful answer to his own inquiry about art.
I think this author has it right on. Art should transport and transform the audience. But i think the audience can have the same affect on the performer. Through reaction and commentary and reviews one can evaluate how to express how to change and revive their art. This connection that is created can be seen more like a web. The playwright to the performer to the audience to the designer to the director. Through art we are all connected maybe briefly but we each leave with something different thanks to the other and i think this is a beautiful thing.
This article truly spoke to me about how art is created and supported. In buying a ticket to an event we are supporting an artist(not directly exactly) or an art type. Art is something that also compounds. People see a performance and take away what they will. The performance can elicit emotions or even inspire. A similar piece could be made or a completely new type of art. This is what makes art an ever changing thing.
Post a Comment